I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

24-105L70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!! Thanks

they are both excellent quality zooms nothing to worry about there.I would possibly consider replacing the 100mm macro with the 85 f1.8 (bargain lens)if you dont shoot much macro that is since on ff fast 85mm are just stunning for portraits great bokehand that also gives you that low light ability you lose with the f4 70-200 (which is damn sharp at f4 BTW)

Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.

Well, first, I think there is a big misconception that f/2.8 lenses are "better" than f/4 lenses. This couldn't be further from the truth. As one example, look at Bryan Carnathan's ISO Charts and compare the 70-200mm f/4L IS vs. 70-200mm f/2.8L. The f/4L IS is sharper at all f/stops center frame in all comparisons, despite the latter being an L lens as well and an f/2.8 lens. The problem is that people think that just because a lens has a wider aperture it peforms optically better and this is just not the case. Yes it would perform better in low light, but guess what, they make tripods. I've shot many, many low light images with f/4L lenses on a tripod. Shutter speed and aperture can both be traded off depending on f/stop. I think the 24-105mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses are superb lenses and I've shot some of my best photos with each! I am still amazed at how sharp the 24-105 is at f/4 during daylight. Those lenses are fantastic. Also, the 17-40 is fantastic. Even if you get the 24-105, keep it. I know this is not your scenario here, but I knew a pro who didn't buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II because he saw better value in buying the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24 f/1.4L instead. Since you have a 35 f/1.4L, there's not much difference here. With your lenses, you will shoot fantastic images at a wide variety of focal lengths. If funding is available, I'd say try to keep the 100 macro too. If not, oh well, you're 70-200 will cover it.

The 70-200 2.8L IS II is arguably the sharpest and maybe the best zoom Canon has made so far.

Canon's f/4 zooms are excellent! If you need to stop action in low light and require the flexibility of a zoom, the f/2.8 is a better choice. If you're going to use the 70-200mm for portraits, again the f/2.8 would be a better choice. But for most applications, the f/4 is just fine, and is much easier on the arms and wallet.

An used Tamron 28-75 2.8 seems an excellent option here. In Sweden they are 600 usd cheaper then used Canon 24-105. They also seem about equally sharp, you lose out on a 3-stop IS but get one f-stop in lens speed instead. You also get to keep 600 usd

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

24-105L70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!! Thanks

I haven't try the f4 70-200 so no comments.

Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II is one of the BEST zoom lens - IQ is amazing. Tacksharp even at 2.8, great Bokeh when needed.